Thanks for your post, Eric, it sheds some light on the situation. I'm
however still pondering the opinion piece text
http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2009/aug/19/pirate-party-claims-using-common-sense-under-inves/
, and mostly the part that says:
"The strict adherence to not censoring books in the UK allows
perverted stories to be published about illegal acts, and I for one
don't understand why this is allowed to continue, let alone allowing
the same to happen with images. It's not censorship, it's exercising
good moral judgement on behalf of the voters who will elect us,
something that is sadly lacking in Westminster currently."
I'm actually a bit shocked to read this, and I hope that I have
misinterpreted something or lack relevant knowledge of the overall
situation (English is not my native tongue). Some people on our
Finnish IRC channel were also quite surprised to read the text, even
though it is an opinion piece. Somebody earlier said that Bitplane was
using straw man strategy when dealing with the Obscene Publications
Act issue. Straw man or not, I still find the original quoted text
quite disturbing and would like somebody to comment on it and/or point
out the facts I'm missing.
My personal opinion about censoring books and images is roughly this:
As long as individuals were not harmed in the making of an image or a
book, there should be zero tolerance for censorship. I think this is
the way most people sympathetic to Finnish Pirate Party think. In
general laws should protect people from being harmed, not from things
some individual finds disgusting (and somebody else possibly not).
Janne Paalijärvi
member, Pirate Party Finland